The case holding that in case where a taxpayer had a certain occupation and income, and had been selling real estate several times, it cannot be presumed that the acquisition fund was donated immediately on the ground that the taxpayer failed to disclose the source of a part of the funds for acquiring real estate.

The case holding that in light of the fact that a taxpayer had had a certain occupation and income in running a personal business, etc. and had had sold real estate over several occasions, it cannot be presumed that the taxpayer was donated the acquisition fund immediately from the father on the ground that the taxpayer failed to disclose the source of a part of the funds for acquiring real estate.

Article 29-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu795 Decided December 10, 1985 (Gong1986, 267) 90Nu1018 Decided March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1308), and 91Nu2106 Decided July 12, 1991 (Gong191, 2180)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu7640 delivered on April 20, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The court below reasoned that the plaintiff operated an electrical product retail and a specialized restaurant from around 1980 to November 1, 1983, and operated an electrical construction company after registering its business in the name of father from around that time to around 1990, reported 20,500,000 won as business income at the tax office on 1981, and reported 3,990,000 won as earned income to the tax office on 1989, and that the plaintiff did not know 37,50,000 won as earned income, and that the court below erred in the judgment below's determination that the plaintiff's disposal of 1 parcel of forest on 10 June 10, 198 was unlawful since the plaintiff did not know 1 parcel of land from November 1, 1989 to 37,30,000,000 won as land expropriation compensation for the same year, and it did not err in the judgment below's determination that the plaintiff's disposal of real estate was unlawful in light of evidence and other evidence that the plaintiff acquired real estate.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)